Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: mcglone Date: Nov 21, 2006 11:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed

earl,

i'm revising this post out of sheer frustration. if your're really more concerned with your own fiscal bottom line rather then the loss of 50, 000 innocent men, woman and children. i don't see any point in going back and forth.

per usual, i look forward to your GD posts.

pollyanna

This post was modified by mcglone on 2006-11-21 19:00:56

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 21, 2006 10:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed

Oh, the humanity. (Sniffle Sniffle.) I think it's a relatively poor idea to bring politics on the boards, but if you think I'll sit idle while you're shitting on my country, you got another thing coming. I suppose to you, the 200,000 to a quarter million Iraqui citizens that silently lay dead from a murderous opressive regime do not count?

So what's the new boss going to do about the body count in the Sudan? Nothing, because it's not politically expedient to do anything. There's no security threat, there's no oil to be had, and war is bad for us, but AOK for those tribal thugs to commit genocide. Besides, it's not our job to police the world. But, Ian, what about the dead citizens in the Sudan. What would you have us do?

George Bush certainly fucked up his handling of Iraq. Our government does not have the ability to understand that democracy is a long way from government by tribal murder as it has been for millenia in Iraq. We cannot force our ideaology onto a country barely hatched from the stone age. Their religious customs will not allow it and they're willingness to kill for power prevents it.

....and when their oil runs out in 30 years, they'll be rocketed back into the stone age for failing to build an infrastructure worthy of our times.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mcglone Date: Nov 21, 2006 11:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed

i agree, sniffle. sniffle.

iraq is/WAS far removed from the stone age. you seem to know alot about the country however, so be sure to stop into the muesum of civilzation on your next visit. oh.. thats right, you handled that one well.

DO know this, i never once shit on your country! bush. like any nightmare will pass and i will continue to crap all over him until that wondeful day comes. however, not here. it's far to easy to go with the patriotic card and beat those war drums. thats what got you/us into this mess in the first place. blind
leading the blind.

btw, world police? bush picked this fight!

earl, i want to take the time to reply to this post. unfortunately, time isn't on my side. i will respond, in full, later this evening.

ian

This post was modified by mcglone on 2006-11-21 19:45:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 21, 2006 11:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed

Here's what I know. You my friend are anti-war. I am not pro war. Iraq is what it is, and all I want to see is us getting out. I am a capitalist, but I see no profit coming from Iraq, unless you work for the United Nations. Once there, I say do the job, obtain the objective and withdraw.

Once bungled, I see the office seekers making political hay from the mishandling of the war. Being duly elected, they profitted from the ineptness of others and the peoples frustration with the situation. Fair enough so far?

Given that they were elected fairly, do I now have the right to expect them to play a role in ending the conflict? I've seen the Democratic leadership, namely Pelosi and Howard Dean wash their hands of that responsibility less than 24 hours after the election. The end of the war was their mandate for change. It was their political platform. They immediately shunned their part in the quid pro quo. If you voted as a statement of protest against the war, I would call it nullified. (That, by the way is not an attack on the Dems, it is fact.)

As for tne Iraqui infrastructure, it was most certainly there and in place. We paid for it by fueling our evil Volkwagen Bus SUV's with Iraqui oil. Ronald Reagan was, in fact, and ally to Saddam. Even took part in holding Saddam's coat while he went of to scuffle with the evil empire of Iran. The root cause of our illustrious history in Iraq, since we forgot to pay back the foreign aid owed to them. (Along with the League of Arab Nations.) It doesn't pay to be a Persian in the Arab world.

Nevertheless, the question remains as to how Iraq moves forward. Do the warlords of Islamic fundamentalism gain power, or the leaders of more moderate sects? The country seems to grasp politics by intimidation and violence, so which way will it go?

As for your chronic thoughts regarding the 50K civilians dead, let's pick one of three choices. 1. How many dead or unknown political casualties if Saddam remains in power and nothing ever happened. 2. How many dead from the international embargo placed on Iraq by the United Nations? 3. How many dead in the upcoming civil war (not my term, see liberal media) for political power?

It's your issue, I'm looking forward to some constructive answers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mcglone Date: Nov 22, 2006 6:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed

earl,

iraq is not just MY issue, at this point it's everyones and if it isn't, it damn well should be! a nations reputation is built over time, but as we've clearly seen, it can be sullied in a heartbeat (or a term and a half).

when i left the forum yesterday, my assignment was to address the crisis in darfur. now, after reading your most recent post, i realize that was only part of it - i have my work cut out for me. quickly, the election. i don't understand your attitude of we (rep.) broke iraq, now you (dem) fix it and pronto! what scares you about a new face with potentially new ideas? it's been what, all of 2 weeks? hard to clean up 6 years of hun like foreign policy. then tack on names like mark foley, tom de lay, and jack ambromoff and boy! they made it a hell of a lot easier for the dems. you also mentioned 'obtaining anobjective' please...the world is waiting... what is your objective?

a poster, willowgorden, had expressed his/her frustration with the recent run of non musical subject matter, i'm sure he/she is not in the only person feeling that way. i would be more than willing to continue this conversation off-list if you wish.

ian

campfireditties@hotmail.com

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 22, 2006 5:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed

Ian. This thread is dead, so I'll continue at the risk of offending probably no one.

1. "Objective" is a military term, and it means to identify your goals. This if you'll recall is something the 'repubs toasted Clinton for in Kosovo and since turn about is fair play, Bush is receiving his fair share. I said fair.

Nonetheless, other than an immediate pullout as recommended by Dem John Murtha, no other newly elected official has come forward to attempt to define their strategy to achieve a suitable exit from Iraq. (Read exit as objective.) Murtha was then snubbed for majority leader by his own party.

Instead of receiving a constructive answer regading moving ahead to solve the problems we have in Iraq, you chose to return to pre-election spin and (rightfully) snub the "bad" republican incumbents who were (again rightfully) voted out.
Not a solution, but follows in lock step with the media and party line.

As for the Sudan, neither you or I have the answer. My wager is that it is not politically expedient or beneficial for either party to become engaged. From what I understand, however, is that we are attempting to get a multi-national peacekeeping force engaged, without benefit of US troops. My illustration was hypothetical, and goes to your obvious and ongoing concerns regading the citizens of a war ravaged country. How do you intervene without bloodshed?

That same concern was reason for my final list of questions, which remained unanswered. Which scenario that I listed, all valid, would be or have had the least amount of casualties in Iraq. Continued governance by Saddam? Ongoing boycott by the UN? The civil war that looms ahead?

Since you rejected my premise that the country is incapable of democratic rule, due to their tribal and religious history...is peaceful democratic elections the way to move forward? If so, how would it have been possible without the intervention and unseating of Saddam?

BTW. The news reported that over 100 Iraqui citizens were killed today. No mention whatsoever that US Forces were responsible for a single death.